The Settler-Colonialism Two-Step: Khanna’s Dance With Zionism

Look, I’ll give credit where it’s due. When Ro Khanna calls Gaza a genocide—which he did, co-sponsoring Rashida Tlaib’s resolution in 2025 that officially recognized Israel’s actions as genocidal—he’s saying something real 1. When he went to the West Bank and got blockaded by armed settlers with American-made M4s, he did what every congressperson should do: see the occupation through Palestinian eyes, not the usual wine-and-dine tour where they kiss the Western Wall and come home to write a glowing op-ed 2.

Khanna’s team got surrounded by masked men with rifles. The IDF statement disputes the details—they say troops “dispersed the Israeli civilians” while Khanna says the soldiers sided with the settlers 3. But here’s the thing: even the IDF’s version admits armed settlers blocked a sitting congressman, kicked tires, cursed at them, laughed at them, and the army had to clear the road 3. That’s a horror show, and Khanna was right to call it out.

But here’s where the sincerity check bounces off the wall.

After over a hundred years of Palestinian dispossession—from the Nakba in 1948 to the systematic destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages—the time for incremental politics is OVER. 4 Khanna wants credit for being “the good one.” The progressive who says the right things but stops short of the finish line.

The BDS Problem

Let’s talk about the big one. Khanna has never supported BDS 5. In fact, he told the Jewish News of Northern California that he’s “unequivocally, since Day 1, condemned ‘globalize the intifada'” and voted to condemn “from the river to the sea” 6.

If you’re not calling for BDS in 2026, you’re a complete fraud. Sorry, not sorry. Any state that does what Israel’s been doing for decades would be sanctioned, and BDS is the only nonviolent tool Palestinians have asked the world to use. It’s the actual, Palestinian-led movement for justice. Khanna opposing it while calling himself a progressive is like saying you support civil rights but you’re against sit-ins.

The Zionism Two-Step

This is where it gets genuinely absurd. Khanna told J. Weekly in October 2025 that he supports Zionism—”self-determination for the Jewish people” and the “right for Israel to exist” 7. He said it’s antisemitic to oppose a Jewish state. Meanwhile, he’s co-sponsoring genocide resolutions and calling for Palestinian statehood 1.

Being pro-Palestine while insisting on the right of a colony built on stealing their land to exist is an oxymoron. It doesn’t fool anyone anymore.

The Two-State Nonsense

If you still advocate for the two-state solution in 2026, please stop talking about Palestine. Your base has moved on. The two-state solution has been a coffin for Palestinian rights for decades. It’s what they wheel out when they want to sound reasonable while the settlements expand—and by the way, the IDF’s own numbers show 700,000 Jews living in settlements illegal under international law 8.

Khanna says he supports a two-state solution but not “Greater Israel” 7. What does that mean in practice? It means more negotiations, more incrementalism, more Palestinian suffering while everyone waits for a “viable state” that’s been made geographically impossible by settlement blocs.

If you’re not calling for the right of all Palestinians to return to all of historic Palestine, for the right of all Palestinians to have full equality with all Israelis, you’re just another Joe Biden with a brown face.

The Politics of Convenience

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: being pro-Palestine is now politically smart for Democrats. It’s not political uranium like it used to be; it’s a political treasure trove. The base has shifted. Polls show 58% of Democrats think the U.S. is “too supportive” of Israel 9. Khanna is eyeing a 2028 presidential run 10. Of course he’s going to climb on the backs of Palestinians to get to higher office.

TrackAIPAC endorsed him after he signed their PEACE Pledge 11. Cute. But what does that actually mean? The group even admitted they only gave him a label saying “We encourage this representative to continue improving their legislative record” 11. Compare that to AOC, who has a green card and a positive label. Khanna is halfway there, but he won’t take the full step.

The Bottom Line

I appreciate Khanna’s words. I appreciate that he went to the West Bank and saw the reality. But words and trips don’t mean a damn thing if you’re not willing to call for complete and actual justice for Palestinians.

That means supporting BDS. That means rejecting Zionism as a settler-colonial project. That means calling for the right of return. That means scrapping the two-state fantasy.

If you’re not there, you’re not going to stop Palestinian suffering. You’re just another politician using their pain to get a promotion. And the Palestinians have had enough of that.


Sources & References

1. Khanna co-sponsored H.Res. 789 (2025) recognizing Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. Congress.gov

2. Khanna describes West Bank trip in +972 Magazine interview, July 2026: “This is what every member should see.”

3. IDF statement to The Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2026: “IDF forces arrived, dispersed the Israeli civilians, and allowed the vehicles to continue on their way.” Khanna’s account via CNN: “Settlers detained us; the IDF sided with them.” Jerusalem Post

4. UNRWA data on Palestinian refugees: ~5.9 million registered refugees (2025). Nakba & ongoing dispossession documented by B’Tselem and Al-Haq.

5. Khanna statement to Jewish News of Northern California, June 2025: “I’ve never supported BDS.” J. Weekly

6. Khanna voted in favor of H.Res. 765 (2025) condemning the phrase “from the river to the sea.” Congress.gov

7. Khanna interview with J. Weekly, October 2025: “I support Zionism — self-determination for the Jewish people.” J. Weekly

8. Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (2025) reports 700,000+ settlers in West Bank. International Court of Justice (2024) advisory opinion: settlements illegal under international law.

9. Pew Research Center (June 2026): “58% of Democrats say U.S. is too supportive of Israel.”

10.Politico (March 2026): “Khanna is actively building infrastructure for a potential 2028 presidential run.”

11. TrackAIPAC PEACE Pledge & Khanna endorsement, July 2026. Label: “We encourage this representative to continue improving their legislative record.” TrackAIPAC

All URLs accessed July 2026. The views expressed are solely those of the author.

The Performance of Regret: How Liberals Will Mourn Palestine the Way They Mourn the Natives: When It’s Far Too Late

Oh regret. Sweet, sweet regret

So PBS, in its annual ritual of self-flagellation-by-parenthesis, decided to slip a little historical footnote into the Fourth of July programming. You know the one: “By the way, those democratic ideals you’re celebrating? Yeah, the Iroquois kind of had that whole federalism thing going first.” And sure, fine. Credit where it’s due. Historical accuracy isn’t the enemy here.

But here’s what’s really going on, and it’s the kind of thing that would make a lesser journalist’s head spin. PBS—and by extension the entire liberal establishment—isn’t actually sorry about what happened to the Natives. They’re not sorry in any way that costs anything. They’re sorry the way a man who ran over your dog is sorry—while he’s already backing over the cat.

Because here’s the logic they want you to swallow: We regret the genocide. We would have stopped it. We would have lived as equals. We would never have forced them into shrinking enclaves, destroyed their buffalo, burned their crops. But—and this is the crucial part—it’s too late now. What’s done is done. Tragic. Anyway, pass the potato salad.

This is the liberal get-out-of-jail-free card. You can express unlimited remorse for the past as long as you don’t have to do a single thing in the present. It’s a theology of convenient grief—a sort of moral insurance policy that costs exactly nothing and yields maximum self-congratulation.

But what if there were a situation, unfolding right this very minute, funded by your tax dollars, shielded by your diplomatic might, where exactly the same thing is happening? What if there was a native population being systematically stripped of land, crammed into walled enclaves, denied the right to return to homes that are now occupied by people who showed up seventy-eight years ago with guns and a divine deed? What if—and stay with me here—what if the United States could, at this very moment, prove that it actually learned something? That it wasn’t just blowing historical smoke up its own rear end?

That situation is called Palestine.

And the silence from the very people who weep into their handkerchiefs over Wounded Knee is deafening.

If the regret were real, you would see a single demand: right of return. Full citizenship. Equal rights for everyone from the river to the sea. You would see sanctions. You would see the aid spigot—the billions of dollars we’ve funneled to Israel every year since Truman was in office—turned completely off. You would see Americans finally acknowledging that we created this monster, we armed it, we gave it diplomatic cover at the UN, we could have stopped the Nakbah in 1948 but actively chose not to, and we have continued to choose not to every single day since.

But that would require admitting something. That would require admitting that the “two-state solution” isn’t a solution at all—it’s a permanent normalization of land theft, a way to make Palestinian statelessness official policy while everyone shakes hands and smiles for the cameras.

So instead, we get the waiting game.

Here’s the plan, as best I can tell: We wait. We keep our heads down. We let Israel do what it’s doing—shrinking Palestinian existence, walling them in, reducing them to an ever-smaller fraction of what they had, clandestinely trickle-expelling them to other countries. We let the refugee camps fester for another generation or two hoping their host countries would eventually throw their hands up and just give them citizenship. We let the ethnic cleansing run its course until there’s barely anything left to argue about.

And then—then—when it’s all over, when the Palestinians have been reduced to a historical footnote of their own, when there’s nothing left but museum exhibits and the occasional PBS documentary—that’s when we’ll weep. That’s when we’ll gather our Palestinian flag handkerchiefs and mourn. That’s when we’ll say, “We should have done something. We should have given them the right to return. We should have treated them like South Africans and ended apartheid.”

And then we’ll add the magic words: “But it’s too late now. What’s done is done.

It’s a beautiful, airtight system of perpetual moral absolution. You get to feel terrible about history while actively funding the next chapter of it. You get to hold the shovel and cry about the hole at the same time. And when the hole is deep enough, you can cover it over, plant a flag, and give a speech about how you would have done things differently if only you’d been in charge.

That’s the game. That’s always been the game. And if you think for one second that the establishment liberals are actually serious about breaking it, I’ve got a federally funded documentary on Native American contributions to democracy that I’d like to sell you.

The Real Litmus Test Isn’t Refusing AIPAC Money—It’s What You Do After

Let’s give credit where it’s due: refusing AIPAC money in today’s Democratic Party takes a certain kind of nerve. It’s not nothing. It’s walking into a room full of people holding cash and saying, “No thanks, I’ll take the death threats instead.” That takes spine, and spine is in short supply on Capitol Hill.

But here’s the difference between those who just want to stop the genocide so they can go back to feeling comfortable with the world and those who want lasting peace and an actual end to the conflict that is at the heart of global unrest: refusing the money is the bare minimum. It’s the opening move, not the final exam. And if we treat it like the finish line, we’re setting ourselves up for the same old disappointment.

Because even politicians who refuse to take AIPAC money, call for ending weapons and money to Israel, call for ending settler violence, and/or call for implementing the two-state solution while still believing in Israel’s co-called right to exist as a Jewish state are still Zionists, and the problem with lesser Zionists is that, when push comes to shove, they are just as capable of mega macabre acts as the overt ones. Look at Joe Biden. We chose him over Trump because Trump was openly Netanyahu’s real estate agent—moving the embassy, gifting the Golan, treating the West Bank like a timeshare. And what did we get? A holocaust. Not hyperbole. An actual, documented genocide, live-streamed to our phones. Kamala would have been more polite about it, but the outcome? Gaza depopulated by now, just with more sympathetic press releases.

The same goes for the Amy Klobuchars, Cory Bookers, and Hakeem Jeffrieses of the world. They’ll stand for a photo with Netanyahu—war criminal, architect of slaughter—and call it diplomacy. They’ll vote for arms packages and call it “supporting our ally.” They don’t view themselves as radically evil as they are, they view themselves as normal. You see, to them, accepting Israel’s founding and existence is normal, and that’s why we can’t have people like them.

So when a politician steps up and says, “I won’t take AIPAC money,” that’s worth noting. It’s a break from the consensus. It’s costly. It invites primary challenges, smear campaigns, and the full weight of a lobbying apparatus that treats Palestine like a PR problem.

But it’s not enough. Not even close.

Here’s what separates the real thing from the performance:

1. BDS isn’t optional. If you’re not willing to support boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel and the companies that prop up its occupation, you’re not serious about ending apartheid. The Palestinian civil society call in 2005 wasn’t a suggestion—it was a strategy. Ignoring it is ignoring the people you claim to stand with.

2. The right of return for all Palestinians into all of historic Palestine isn’t negotiable. UN Resolution 194 wasn’t a footnote. Palestinians didn’t leave because they wanted to—they were driven out, dispossessed, and replaced. They still live in refugee camps, generations later, while their old homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and the hundreds of Palestinian villages now engulfed in “Israel” are occupied by people who had no connection to the land. They were traded generational poverty for their generational wealth. Any politician who sidesteps this is normalizing theft and ethnic cleansing.

3. Two states is dead. Long live equality. The two-state solution isn’t a solution anymore—it’s a rhetorical coffin. Settlements have carved up the West Bank past the point of viability. What we have is one state, and it’s an apartheid state. The only moral path forward is full equality for everyone between the river and the sea—whether through one state, a federation, or something we haven’t imagined yet. Every Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza deserves the same rights as any Jew in 1948 Palestine, and every diaspora Palestinian deserves the same right to go back to historic Palestine and gain citizenship that Jews around the world can gain.

This isn’t about purity-testing the people who are actually trying. It’s about keeping the goalposts where they belong. The politicians who refuse AIPAC money deserve our respect—and our scrutiny. Because if they stop at “I said no to the check,” they’re still selling us short.

The system doesn’t need tweaks. It needs dismantling. And that starts with demanding more from the people who claim to be on the right side—not less.

So no, don’t attack the ones who’ve taken the courageous step. Praise them. Then hand them a list of what comes next. Because without these demands, we’re not building peace—we’re just trading one set of enablers for another, and the bodies keep piling up.

And that’s the grift we’ve all been sold.